R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I've been in plays and musical performances. My sister-in-law (who I'm blogrolling now that I've just thought about it) is a costume designer for a college. So I've had experience in the debate about what is proper on the public stage. I'm also a military wife, as you all know, and how the military is viewed in the public eye is also an interest of mine.

Last night, on Dancing With The Stars, Audrina Patridge and Tony Dovolani did a waltz to the song "Let It Be Me," which they admitted they did as a tribute to "armed soldiers." You think I'm joking!

Now, I do not have a problem with a popular program trying to honor the people who make the freedom of this country possible. I do, however, have a problem with the misuse of the military uniform, which, in this case, is a Marine NCO dress uniform. I'm an Air Force wife, but I feel it is my duty to defend the military whenever and wherever I can.

Note that Tony has three stripes on his sleeve, designating a Sergeant, an E-5. Therefore, it is proper that Tony's uniform have the classic blood stripe on it, because the rank he's wearing is an NCO. It is not proper, however, unless you have served, to wear a uniform with that branch's insignia. It appears that Tony is wearing the Marine insignia, and he has never served.

These may seem to be minor or trifling points, but I feel it is important to state that the uniforms of the U.S. military are not to be treated as mere costumes. It may look "cool" and fit a story to be decked out in Marine NCO dress uniform, but Marines have to earn the enlisted NCO's blood stripe. They don't hand it to you after Marine boot camp, which is the longest of all the armed services (13 weeks) and is no cakewalk. (There's a term Tony ought to be familiar with!) You earn the rank of E-5 (the second enlisted rank you may wear the blood stripe) by competing for that particular slot and serving a minimum of two years in the Marines, who are fondly known in the other branches as the "bullet-catchers."

And as for the insignia, it is common knowledge that you, as a civilian, can wear a uniform as long it does not have distinct characteristics of a particular branch (insignia, badges, tabs, service medals, etc.). In a theatrical or motion picture production, actors are allowed to wear a military uniform. (10 USC Subtitle A, Chapter 45, Section 772 [f]) However, this was not a play or a movie, but a ballroom dancing show. Tony wasn't portraying someone specifically. He was a generic Marine lost (presumably in war) who was coming to dance with his love. Also, Marine Corps Uniform Regulations (11004[d]) state that actors may not discredit the Marine Corps while wearing the uniform. That one is more subjective in this case, because although the judges loved it, I don't think Tony danced all that exceptionally.

The bottom line is that Tony should have taken off the insignia and foregone the blood stripe completely in order to honor the uniform. The uniform is not a costume to do with whatever you wish. Look, I have to wash and dry clean Pooky's uniforms constantly (a load in the washer and a load in the dryer right now). I'm thankful that ABUS do not require ironing. Show some respect, and double-check that it's okay to wear it before you put it on. What Tony did is not technically illegal, but it's in such a grey area that he should have erred on the side of caution.

And if the judges are going to award Audrina's wooden face, they shouldn't have taken Bristol Palin to task for her concentration in portraying a snobby-turned-fun character. Good grief, look at that girl's footwork! In heels, no less!

H/t to Cassy Fiano for her eagle eye on this one.

Reality Meets Gaming (Yet Again)

I'm a gamer. Not an uber one, but I'm still a gamer. That's why videos like this one make me drool. Awesome graphics, good story, blowing stuff up, and Linkin Park. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, according to the perpetual-panties-in-a-wad bunch, plenty. In the newest Medal of Honor game, you can play as the enemy our military is fighting against in Afghanistan-the Taliban. This is not a new concept. There always has to be someone playing the bad guy, and while sometimes it's the computer, a good chunk of the time it's another player.

I agree that when we're fighting a war, it's not in good taste to glamorize the enemy. I'm looking at the hardcore Left more than EA Games on that point. How is constantly whining that we need to "sympathize" with the people trying to kill us morally superior to playing that enemy in a fantasy world? What has done more to push the very ideology we're fighting against: Agitating to adopt the tenets of that ideology through "multiculturalism" or experiencing the full consequences of when the American military forcibly disagrees with you?

AAFES threatened to not stock MOH, which is probably the biggest reason EA Games waved the white flag and changed the Taliban in multi-player mode to... "opposing forces." It's a cosmetic change, to be sure, but I have to give credit to both sides here (sorry for the show of unity, Dan Riehl and Ed Morrissey). AAFES has a right to say that they won't stock something they feel denigrates the military, and EA Games has the right to make changes to their game in response to their audience.

I have a proposal that would please both sides even more. I know that the game is based off of a story from 2001, but let's make it even more realistic. If you play the "opposing force," certain things should happen to you. Whenever you start off a mission, your leader is taken out by a drone. Suicide bomber vests have a 2% chance of going off inside your own encampment. Your old equipment that's been sitting in a musty cave for decades has a 5% chance of exploding every time you use it. Your hideout has a 10% chance of being under bombardment. Sound like you want to play that side?

In truth, American gamers are itching to get their hands on this game because they want to kick some ass and emulate our military. I'm aware that mercenaries are a factor in this game, but they're still acting on behalf of American interests.

Am I going to buy this game? Probably not, but that's because I'm not good at first-person shooters (yeah, I'm pathetic!). Am I going to look forward to cool videos from it and play "The Catalyst" over and over as I play other games? You betcha!

Seeing Red Again

Warning: Strong language ahead.

When you're a military wife, you're caught between a love for your country and an anger when the government takes the military for granted. The latter often happens when there's a Democrat in the White House. And this administration is no different.

Bob Woodward is putting out a new book called Obama's Wars, and in cleaning the bathroom, I happened to hear parts of it on Sean Hannity's show. I was livid, to say the least. Obama is shutting out the generals, coming up with his own little plans and throwing temper tantrums when things don't go the way he wants. In the 2008 campaign, he kept talking about bringing the focus back to Afghanistan instead of the war the Left considered unjust, Operation Iraqi Freedom. But when it came to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief, he didn't want to fight a war. He wanted to get out of it as soon as possible.

Now, these are things that conservatives knew going into the election. We warned that Obama didn't have the mettle to carry things through, that we needed someone committed to the global war on terror, and that the McCain/Palin ticket, for all its flaws, answered those challenges. But the voters were swayed by a smooth operator, and we wound up with the least qualified president ever. He's running our economy into the ground. He's trashing America abroad and alienating our allies. He doesn't know how to buy apples. Most egregious of all these things, though, is his refusal to win.

The president's oath reads as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To defend the Constitution of the United States means that you defend it when it is under attack, as it is now by Islamic extremists trying to take down America. They hate our Constitution. They don't understand its rights and protections because to them, Sharia law worldwide is their goal. Our President refuses to acknowledge this, and thereby aids the terrorists when he downplays the role that religious extremism plays in their efforts. Yes, I realize that, when forced to, he talks about Islamic extremism. But we have to drag him kicking and screaming like a little child who doesn't want to got to bed when he's been up for 18 hours. He'd rather be out having fun with his friends than think about the men and women dying for freedom.

Here comes the strong language.

We are not in Afghanistan to safely run away. We're there to kick the ever-lovin crap out of al-Qaeda because they did the unthinkable and went after our civilians. Our civilians, who were forced to plummet over 100 stories to their deaths because their lungs were giving out after al-Qaeda smashed planes into the place in which they happened to work. Our civilians, who held onto each other in terror as their planes went down with al-Qaeda at the helm. Our civilians, who refused to leave the stairwells of the World Trade Center as they helped others get out to safety and died for their bravery. Our civilians, who charged the al-Qaeda-held cockpit in a desperate attempt to save lives other than their own.

That's why we're in Afghanistan, Mr. President. Our enemies will not wage war on us in the nice, clean manner you envision. Those days are gone, and it's time to kick ass. "We win, they lose," said Ronald Reagan, a man far greater than you will ever be. Unlike you, he knew that the purpose of our military is to kill people and break things, no matter whose feelings might get hurt in the process. We have the greatest military in the world, damnit, and it's time to use it. Give Gen. Petraeus what he needs to win this war. We're going into the heart of darkness and we don't need your namby-pamby rhetoric about sensitivities or false posturing about fiscal responsibility as you're slashing the military budget. Our enemy, the scum of the earth, uses civilians as shields and children on the battlefield. There is going to be collateral damage. Suck it up and take it like the men and women you're sending into harm's way. Let us win, Mr. President, and do your freakin job.

Oh, Where Do I Start?

President Obama had a town-hall meeting yesterday, and someone asked him about the Tea Party. I could spend all day going over that appearance, but I just want to address one statement.

"America has a noble tradition of being healthfully skeptical about government. That's in our DNA." (Obama-bots, surprisingly, applaud.) "We came in because, uhhh, the folks, uhhh, over on the other side of the Atlantic been, uhhhh, oppressing folks without giving reputation."

Where did Obama learn his U.S. history?! Indonesia? Oh wait, he probably did. His grasp on history is tenuous, at best. Sure the Puritans came over here because they wanted a place to practice their religious freedom, but others came over to start a new life. But that's not the problematic part. The "no taxation without representation" (not reputation!) did not come until the American Revolution, over a hundred years later, when we were already here! We revolted not only because we were "skeptical of the government," but because they weren't listening to the people. Which is why, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave the people the power to tell the government what we think. Government works for the people, not the other way around, and that is an American principle. We're skeptical of the government, but that's not why we've got the best democracy in the world. We've got it because of freedom.

The problem with the debate that's taken place, uhhh, and, uhhh, with some of these Tea Party events I think they're misidentifying who the culprits are here. We had two tax cuts that weren't paid for,

Rush went nuclear on the idea that tax cuts need to be "paid for," and I agree. When taxes are cut, the economy grows, and government gets more revenue. It's called the Laffer Curve, and it's been proven correct because of human nature, not pie-in-the-sky academic analysis. Obama might know about such things if he or anyone in his administration had private sector experience. The money people make does not belong to the government. The money people make belongs to them, and the government taxes them to pay for services for the people. The reason liberals hyperventilate about tax cuts is that they think that all wealth belongs to the government and that tax cuts means the government gets less revenue. They then spout rhetoric like Obama did, hoping that everyone gets as panicked as they do when the idea of a smaller government gets floated around.

two wars that weren't paid for.

When the Right points out all the services that could be trimmed, the Left demands that we cut back on war spending. This is baseless. The war in Iraq cost less than the failed stimulus of early 2009. The war in Afghanistan is ongoing, so we don't have the numbers for that yet, but we do know that Obama did not want to commit resources in the form of troops as his generals asked. Why is it that whenever the budget gets cut, the Left goes after the Pentagon? The military has a Constitutional imperative to protect the country, and the Left does everything they can to undercut them. There is no Constitutional imperative for Social Security, Medicare or government-funded housing, and as painful as it would be, Americans know deep down that those programs need to be trimmed.

We've got a population, uhhh, that's getting older. We're all demanding services but our taxes have actually substantially gone down,

But we don't have money for anything. Before the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, we had a deficit, but we were trying to get things under control. Then the Blue Wave came, and spending went through the roof, compounded by Congress' refusal to do anything about the ticking time bomb of sub-prime mortgages. The Democrats are hoping to rewrite history by blaming the recession on the Bush tax cuts, which makes no sense whatsoever. What does increased federal debt - which they claim is from the Bush tax cuts (which is false) - have to do with the economy taking a dive after the markets tanked? That's pure Keynesian thinking, and it's ridiculous. The reason the economy took a nosedive is that the government, because of the Democrats, forced banks to lend money to people that couldn't pay it back, and then the whole scheme collapsed. Barack Obama doesn't want you to know about that. He wants you to think that Bush waved an eeeeeeevil magic wand and the recession happened. Oh, and have you heard that the government will still help you get a home even if you can't pay for it?

and so the -- the challenge I think for the Tea Party movement is to identify specifically: What would you do?

They've told you what they want to do! TEA originally stood for Taxed Enough Already, because the American taxpayer is fed up with high taxes and a byzantine tax code. They want Washington D.C. to stop spending and putting their grandchildren into debt. Read their signs, Obama! Unlike the idiots that Andrew Breitbart confronted, they'll stand by their signs and explain them to you, and even make fun of the media for obsessing over their signs.

Channeled Rage

Even though I was in the middle of an intense ICC 10 raid last night, I still managed to watch Sarah Palin's speech to the Iowa GOP and Sen. Lisa Murkowski's announcement of a write-in campaign. One of them lifted me up, and one of them made be so angry that we took out two bosses I'd never been able to defeat before.

Sarah Palin's speech started out fast-paced. I think she was a little nervous because she'd drawn record numbers to the dinner and it was being carried by C-Span and Fox News. But she slowed down halfway into the speech, making a clear case for the cause of conservatism and the need to win in 2010 (candidly talking about ducking 2012 questions, natch!). She called for unity in the GOP, reminding us all that the primaries were over and we needed to back our candidates.

After her speech, interestingly, her mike was kept hot as she walked off the platform to the back hallway to make her exit. Even though you couldn't see what was going on, Palin was mobbed by media and well-wishers. She handled both gracefully, posing for pictures, signing items, and accepted a tape someone gave her, all while fielding questions from the media she'd just ripped a gaping hole in for not exercising their military-protected right wisely. Palin came off well, demonstrating fantastically Reagan's "happy warriors" of conservatism.

I wish I could say the same for Lisa Murkowski. After the "independents" (more on one of those later) came out and asked her to run, she went on for 20 minutes in a pathetic ego-fest. She threw her family aside, saying it would have been easy to bow out and spend time with them, but she looked in her heart and decided to run anyway. She invoked the ghost of Ted Stevens, essentially saying that Ted would want her to run. She condescended to the voters, saying she was going to educate them on how to spell her name after her family has spent decades in the Alaskan spotlight. She outright lied, saying Alaskans need a "senior Senator" to bring home the federal dollars (which is somehow not pork, by the way), when it's unlikely she'll keep her position in leadership and ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She admitted that she was breaking her own pledge that she would abide by the primary results, but supposedly that was because Joe Miller ran a "smear campaign." In other words, his shoestring budget did the unthinkable and told the truth.

But that's not what made me channel my rage into Festergut and Rotface. It was one of the people who preceded Murkowski and implored her to run. I'd like to address her below:

Dear Katie,

I'm not even sure if this is your name or not, because when I asked the people who were watching this rally with me to double-check, they told me that your name is Katie and you hadn't specified a last name. If you did this to retain anonymity, you should have realized that as a person contacted by Murkowski's campaign to speak on national television, you opened yourself up to public scrutiny.

You began by stating that you were a military spouse without identifying the branch or unit your husband served in. You said that you had come to Alaska in 1996 and you now considered Alaska home. First of all, in order to be a "military family" that had stayed in one place for 14 years, your husband would have had to get out of active duty and enlist in the Alaska National Guard. Alaska is considered an overseas assignment, and to even get back-to-back 4-year tours there would be rare, much less a 14-year assignment. The National Guard being what it is, in general, spouses specify that their significant other is in the National Guard. In fact, almost every military spouse I've met proudly identifies what branch their spouse serves in. (Go Air Force!) So, this leads me to believe that your husband did not re-enlist, retired, or, heaven forbid, was kicked out. This means you are no longer a "military family." You may think of yourself as such, but the label no longer applies. It does not lend any credibility to your endorsement of Lisa Murkowski's quixotic write-in campaign when your self-identification is in question.

Then you proceeded to say that you spoke for all military families in endorsing Murkowski. The military does not endorse candidates, and cannot ever been seen as doing so. They have regulations making it very clear that military members are not to run for office or publicly use their military status to endorse a candidate. If a military spouse endorses a candidate, they must make it very, very clear that they are doing so as a personal decision.

You do not speak for me. Where do you get the authority to speak for all military families? What organization do you head that has the backing of the families of over two million military members? I take offense at anyone saying that they are speaking for all military families, especially when they're endorsing a power-hungry lying vindictive politician like Lisa Murkowski. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Your husband did not serve so you could use his service to promote a career politician. Your husband served so that you could state your endorsement of this spoiled brat as an American.

Sincerely,

An Air Force Wife

Obligatory Gamer Dr00l Post

Yes, I'm stealing headline-writing from Allahpundit. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :P

I'm also cheating on blog content, so there.

My apologies for the smallness of the video, but Blogger is constraining me.

Vescere bracis meis!

The Time-Wasters Of My Life

I got a request the other night to make this a "Conservatives on WoW" blog. I don't think that would get me very far, because a) Most gamers are libertarians, not conservatives, and b) I cannot talk numbers like Pooky can. So I'll just write a short post on it.

Tipper Gore's campaign against violent media helped shove a lot of geeks into the libertarian camp, and I still see them fighting the automatic assumption that video games make people violent. As for the blogs that talk about gaming, there is no way I could do that. When I'm on my paladin in a raid, I am (literally) blowing everyone away with my damage per second, but I can't tell you the numbers behind what I'm doing. My gaming style is more about instinct than math. And I like whacking things. Lots and lots of things.

I told a friend the other day that WoW, Guild Wars and Twitter are the bane of my existence, but lately, it's become clear that WoW is the biggest time sink mankind has ever invented. It takes you months to get to level 80 (and they're upping it to 85 soon), and when you do, you have to dungeon grind to get the gear you need to raid. After that, it's all about the tons of achievements WoW has come up with. And don't even get me started on the professions you have to slog through!

Guild Wars is time-consuming, but the biggest chunk of time is getting through the missions in the campaigns. Fighting Shiro at the end of Factions is an extremely short mission, but it is so incredibly intense that you almost feel that it is real. There are dungeons in the Eye of the North expansion, and I don't do those as much as most players do because unless you have a lot of people you know in your group, errors tend to compound themselves. I've heard people gripe about the 15% death penalty you get for dying, but you can work it off with XP and if things are going to the Realm of Torment in a handbasket, you can zone and start over. The ability to create customizable characters and play them through a coherent storyline has inspired me to start a fan fiction that maybe, just maybe I'll get finished with someday. And I'll have you know that I was working on mine a year before these guys!

Overall, what I like about MMORPGs is the ability to enter a fantasy and have fun. Pooky's uncle had his WoW account hacked last week (they were even so cruel as to delete almost all of his characters!), and he had to keep telling himself, "It's just a game. It's just a game." It took a week for Blizzard to get him some of his characters back, and even then, they couldn't recover the gear that had been stripped. The guild pitched in, and we were able to get him most of his gear back. Experiences like that can make you want to quit, but then you meet the vast community of people who just want to have fun and are willing to help out others. Or, if you happen to be a cute female, you get lots of help and gold. :P

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to level my mining and engineering on my level 67 shaman. And farm some icy humps by beating up a bunch of Ettins. And try to keep up with people on Twitter.